Appendix T -Another Perspective

The author prefers to remain anonymous

One particular primary negotiating position proposed by YUFA Executive should be of grave concern to YUFA members. They need to be informed about it so that they can make an informed intervention when the position is brought to the membership meeting for ratification -or preferably defeat. The particular motion is entitled Appendix T (formerly U) and is a dense thicket of text which in effect suggests that all YUFA members (irrespective of salary) forego a 4% salary increase in the first year of the new contract in order to create new positions. This is being sold as a progressive move to address the casualization of labour. However what is missing from this analysis are these facts:

1) Those who can least afford to forego inflationary increase are disproportionately going to be marginalized faculty (faculty of colour, women, people with disAbilities, Aboriginal faculty), whose salaries are clustered at the bottom of the salary scale.

2) These marginalized faculty are, moreover, going to pay for this even more disproportionately as this cut will be compounded in future years. Furthermore, these cuts have huge implications for pensions (which have already taken a beating on the markets this year).

3) Another group that will be disproportionately penalized are people who are within 5 years of retirement. The cuts will affect the 'best 5 years' of salary on which the pension formula is based.

4) Most importantly, this is an approach to addressing the problem of casualization of labour which does not address the fundamental systemic factors which have led to this casualization over the years (including chronic government underfunding, expansion of senior administrative staff with a hiving off of funds for inflated adminstrative salaries, the policy of increasing enrollments without commensurate resources being allocated, etc.). Instead, this is a corporate answer to a problem of underfunding PUBLIC education - we are not google or microsoft and hence do not share in the profits of the company through a share allocation program when times are good. We are a public institution which is funded through every single Canadian citizens' taxes, and so why should we introduce corporate solutions into public institutions? This is a dangerous and ultimately ineffective route for addressing problems with the allocation of public monies.

5) Finally, this move will not even guarantee that positions (even if we ask for proportional distribution of positions across faculties) will be created in areas we think we need. Those who work on issues/ topics that are already marginalized in mainstream curricula (and in small programs) know the dangers of proportional distribution of resources, which always translates into ‘The majority rules'. There is, moreover, no guarantee that frozen hires would be reactivated.

Members need to make their displeasure with this ‘primary negotiating position’ known to their departmental stewards and ask them to represent these concerns in the discussions. Discuss this issue with your colleagues. And of course come out to the membership meetings where these issues will be discussed and ratified -or defeated. They can only be defeated if people come out and vote against the proposed primary negotiating postion - no one else can cast your vote for you.

Commenting on this Story is closed.